There are some issues with lawfulness of it, Masha, as many of the camps are assembling
without permits, or spilling onto areas that were not authorized. That is by far the most
common grievance the mayors and police forces report.
The problem is that you have to apply for a permit to assemble on the lands they typically occupy.
The First Amendment says: Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
What does free mean? Does that mean the permit must not cost money? Does stalling a permit
violate their rights, because they have to wait, and are not "free to assemble" until that permit
is allowed, if ever?
Unfortunately, long-standing laws are found to be unconstitutional all the time, and just as many
laws that "shouldn't be" are found constitutional, because they depend on interpretation of the
amendments by the courts. The way many protestors go about provoking these unconstitutional
acts may not be the wisest, but many of them feel the alternative methods are ineffectual.
I promote a more legal and civil message, rather than pure civil disobedience, but I fear that giving
in to every city leaderships' demands, will box protestors into the deepest alleys where their voice
cannot be heard.